Thanks for the tutorial, it was interesting, for me in particular since I've done many such intro for W3C newcomers. One thing that I didn't hear about, or that I may have missed, relates to the ICANN or GNSO process used by the WG chair(s) to reach consensus and declare the work ready to go to its next step (e.g. a public review, a board review, a final version). That includes the role of the WG deliverable editors, how they can change the document under the chair authority, the use of version management, etc. More generally, how agreements are reached within a group, how the consensus is declared, and using what tool ? One important feature of our system is the obligation for our groups to track their issues transparently using some "standard" semantics for various terms such as open issue, closed, pending review, postponed, etc. To advance through their various steps (toward a standard, or a deliverable, more generally) the chairs must check that all issues have been adequatly resolved/postponed (and since the tracking is public most of the time, it's impossible to hide something or forget it). For instance, for this Timed Text W3C group (related to caption for video), you can see their active list of issues at https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/ and check where they stand, but also, for each issue, you can follow down the links to the specific email exchanges about the issue (if you want to read how the decision ended up that way for instance). Anyway, I'm interested in knowing if tooling of that sort is available at ICANN, or in the GNSO, how it'sused, or if each WG operates in an adhoc way (e.g. the chair is responsible for tracking, however she prefers to do it). Thanks. Daniel Dardailler (I don't quite see the need for signing each of my message with my full name since this information is already in my email From field, so forgive me in advance if I forget this particular rule, as I never do it, not even signing with my initial or first name, or alias).